Baker Academic

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Who's afraid of the Cynic Jesus?

From Wikipedia

At the recent God,
Religion and Politics: Election 2015 seminar,
there was a non-polemical discussion between Michael Sandford and Justin Meggitt
about Jesus and the Cynics after Meggitt’s paper, ‘Jesus, Insurrection and the
Politics of Prefiguration’. One striking thing about this was that a discussion
about Jesus and the Cynics could actually be non-polemical as this topic must
have been one of the most polemical in recent historical Jesus scholarship. In
fact, I recall Sandford giving a paper a few years back on how the Jesus
movement along with various other groups interacted with socio-economic issues.
These different perspectives included Essenes and/or DSS, prophets, bandits etc. and…Cynics. Sandford never made any strict connections (as far
as I remember) but rather showed the sorts of ideological engagements that were taking place, as well as placing an emphasis on eschatological traditions which were sometimes seen as inherently antithetical on both sides of the debate. Nevertheless, there was a heated reaction from the some members of the audience about the
use of Cynics in Jesus studies (bandits also provoked a reaction, but that’s
for another time).

Why was the Cynic debate so heated, especially as adherents of
the Cynic thesis would qualify this Jesus as ‘Cynic-like’? I’m not entirely
sure myself (or indeed why I might have once felt the need to point out that I
wasn’t an adherent of such a thesis, being caught up in my own
particularly academic contexts as I was/am) but it was certainly tied in with the rhetoric
of Jesus the Jew. Put crudely, the logic would sometimes go like this: Jesus
was Jewish and therefore could not have been a Cynic; if you call Jesus a Cynic
you are implying that he was not Jewish but Hellenistic or the like, possibly
in a similar way to Nazi Jesuses (this link was indeed implied by opponents of
the Cynic-like thesis). Now, there are debates to be had on the extent of Cynic
presence (or otherwise) in first-century Palestine but the idea that a Jew simply couldn’t be
a Cynic and a Cynic means you’re not Jewish (and I don’t think I’m overly caricaturing
here) works with some problematic and essentialist assumptions of identity.

Also from Wiki

It’s
clear enough that both self-identifying and being identified as a ‘Jew’ could
go hand-in-hand with other means of identification in the ancient world (associations, philosophical
interests, etc.). It is also clear enough that different traditions could be in dialogue with one
another, influence (consciously or unconsciously) one another, use similar
language to describe the world around them, and so on. Comparisons between certain
aspects of Jewish literature and certain aspects of Cynic philosophy have been
made and such overlaps and shared interests must at the very least be theoretically
possible. Moreover, as far as I am aware, no contemporary academic presentation
of the Cynic thesis has ever claimed that their Jesus wasn’t Jewish.

There
has been a lot of discussion about constructions of a fixed Jewish identity in
scholarship as a backdrop to make Jesus ‘transcend’ this fixed identity (in ways simultaneously using the rhetoric of ‘very Jewish’). But why did the Cynic (-like) thesis cause so much outrage?
One reason sometimes given is that it is theologically useless for the implicitly Christian
discipline of NT studies and there is no doubt something in this (just read some
of the most prominent reactions against a Cynic Jesus…). But even this needs to
be qualified. The criticism that the Cynic (-like) thesis played into a
particular North American liberal discourse is not without merit either and it is not
exactly theologically useless from another perspective: is not difficult to see
how this Jesus has its liberal theological uses (just read some of the
prominent proponents of a Cynic-like Jesus). Perhaps it might be better to
locate some of this debate in the ‘culture wars’ rhetoric, including such
debates between churches.

Again, Wiki

None of this means that discussion of Cynicism is invalid for (ancient) historical reconstruction. I think Sandford was along the right lines in showing how presentations from the Jesus traditions through bandits to Cynics engaged with shifting socio-economic
circumstances. Instead of asking whether Jesus was or was not a Cynic, it might be more helpful to think about how traditions negotiated the world
around them and not be surprised if there are overlaps and similarities and so
on. A study of Cynicism can shed light on the Gospel tradition in this
respect, and vice versa. Scholarship has been interested in Jesus as ‘counter
cultural’ for some time now; is not Cynicism at least analytically useful as
a comparative phenomenon in this respect? Why be scared of that...?

16 comments:

Would the negative reaction to a Cynic Jesus be tied to a negative reaction to certain sayings of Jesus, such as this one?

23 But when he heard this he became sad, for he was very rich. 24 Jesus looking at him said, “How hard it is for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18)

James, you might count me among those afraid of the idea of the Cynic Jesus. To me, a de-judaized Jesus presents a danger to both Jews and Christians. It is not so much that a Cynic Jesus wouldn't be Jewish. It is more that the Cynic Jesus would be seen as a Jew (like Freud and Marx) in opposition to his own people. Historically, Jesus as the anti-Judaism Jew has been a scary idea.

I don't know the scholarship too well, but I've never heard of a parallel effort to paint Rabbi Hillel as (say) a stoic, or Rabbi Akiva as (say) a neoplatonist. Why not? Isn't the answer to the "why not" question as obvious as it seems?

But the scholar I personally associate with the idea of the Cynic Jesus (correctly or not) is John Dominic Crossan, and it's hard to think of a stronger proponent of the Jewish Jesus (or a Christian scholar more positive about Judaism) than Crossan.

Doubtless following someone I've read (Dale Allison? Bart Ehrman?), I see the Cynic Jesus in opposition to Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet. In theory I suppose, Jewish apocalypticism might be more uniquely or particularly Jewish than Jewish cynicism. But really, it’s a question of how Jesus was Jewish. Nothing says that because Jesus was Jesus, his Judaism should be more or less open to ideas from other cultures. I think that Allison and Ehrman have the better historical construct, but I admit that considering Jesus as a cynic helps in my understanding of Jesus.

So, OK. Thanks for this. Next time someone wants to discuss the Cynic Jesus, I promise to take a deep breath and try not to feel afraid!

I don't think it necessarily follows that a Cynic Jesus has to be in opposition to his own people--after all to deal with those questions we still only have the same data and, for what it is worth, it looks pretty clear that the early traditions do not have anything like a rejection of Judaism (internal disputes, sure, but which group doesn't?). What seems clear to me is that the earliest material is not distinct from what is known about Judaism and that there are clear assumptions about the construction of a specifically Jewish identity. If there is some relationship with Cynicism, I don't think is is used for purposes of being in opposition to Judaism at all. On the contrary.

My own thoughts on this are more comparative. Why are their similar sorts of sayings in Cynicism and the Gospel tradition? What sort of circumstances are both dealing with? Also, I am thinking about longer, less direct influences. There is less difficulty imagining other cultural influences (Hellenism, Persian thought etc), irrespective of whether Jews were conscious of such influences. As it happens, I likewise think the idea of an eschatological prophet fits the early material well (like Allison and Ehrman) but I don't see the problem of a social critic etc as part of that early tradition too.

James, I think that you're right that some of the reactions against the thesis relate to "culture wars". Those who have tended toward a cynic comparison have tended to be minimalist in the data from the Gospels used for historical reconstruction. If all we have to work with are a few pithy sayings (i.e. the red beads), Jesus becomes more plausibly rendered as an anti-establishment, ascetic trickster. Thus the cynic comparison gets interesting. Whereas those taking maximal approaches to historical reconstruction tend to include data from exorcisms, healing, prophetic utterance, Scriptural citation/debate, etc. Thus the associations with apocalyptic ideologies become more interesting.

As for me and my house, my problem with the cynic comparison is that we're basing too much upon too little. I will point out however that Gerd Theissen writes an interesting chapter in Soundings in the Religion of Jesus that addresses this comparison and how it relates to Jesus' Judaism.

Yes, I agree with your presentation of the scholarly positions which, I think, has become part of the problem when trying to use Cynicism even as a cross cultural comparative exercise. And I'm not remotely convinced that an anti-establishment trickster type can't also be thoughts of as an eschatological prophetic type, as if they are just inherently mutually exclusive. Why not both? Not a problem in the Gospel tradition. I likewise think there's not enough evidence to establish precise direct links or the like. But that similar reactions take place is interesting and worth trying to explain.

If I remember rightly, Theissen discussed Cynic parallels maybe in the 1970s and there was no sustained reaction then.

James, I'm a both/and sort of fellow. I like Van Halen with both DLR and Sammy Hagar. I like Cheers with both Diane and Rebecca. I like both the skinny-dancing and the fat-dancing John Travolta. So I'm open to discussing a cynic-like Jesus as a heuristic device.

Nice to see a more moderate and reasoned response to the argument for "a Cynic(-like) Jesus than we have read from you in the past. What has Sandford said that Crossan failed to point out that has changed your approach to the possibility of a Cynic-like Jesus?

It's difficult to know precisely how changes of mind happen (not least to yourself). I think some of this started to hit home when I read these debates as ideological data and it was clear (then) that something was going on when people tried to make out that 'Jewish' and 'Cynic' were somehow inherently incompatible. I still have problems with some aspects of Crossan's portrait of Jesus but not because it is tied up with Cynicism as such. However, I think scholarly reactions tied in the brokerless kingdom etc strongly with Cynicism too much and, like many, I got caught up in that. What I think Sandford (and in a different way, Meggitt) did which was helpful in both papers was to think more about this as a comparative phenomenon which may have overlaps and connections without having to be so precise about direct relationships. But I think it was the reaction to Sandford's perfectly reasonable comments that hit home what I was already thinking about scholarly reactions to Cynicism: they were *too* heated and angry. Something like that.

James, this was interesting. A parallel phenomenon in some ways could be the employment of Sepphoris and Tiberias in historical Jesus research. I've been thinking on this for a little while, specifically the way that some scholars use the supposed deep, deep Hellenism (oh so much more Hellenized than anywhere else in the region it, so the rhetoric goes sometimes) of these cities and Jesus' (and Joseph's) supposed working there everyday in order to introduce certain categories for Jesus into the discussion. Likewise, I think some scholars tend to shut down any discussion of Jesus being in Sepphoris and Tiberias in order to keep those categories from entering the discussion. I haven't managed to get the time to write this up, but I think a survey of how these cities are used in historical Jesus scholarship would be useful and would also intersect at some interesting points with the Cynic Jesus discussion.

Yes, debates over Sepphoris and Tiberias are very much tied in with the Cynic discussion and keeping Jesus out can function as a way of keeping him more ideologically pure, so to speak. I struggle with this idea of degrees of Hellenisation because I don't know how it can ultimately be shown without far more data where the debates are explicitly taking place. But it is still clear enough that there were a number of presentations which show how there were different ways of showing Jewish identity in relation to 'Hellenism'. But even if we took the (not unreasonable) argument that the presentation of Jewish identity was strong and widespread, influences from (say) Cynicism or whatever philosophical tradition need not be direct and obvious, and could easily be unconscious. It could have happened over a long period of time. It may also be that the Gospel tradition did not understand its Cynic parallels as particularly 'Cynic'. Or maybe it understood them in competition. I don't know. But I think the idea of direct influence can be misleading.

What's this got to do with your question? Something, honest. Even if Jesus (and Joseph) avoided Sepphoris, the influence of the town would have had some significance. Again, even if people in Nazareth knew it or not. Rebuilding a major town so close would have and impact one way or another (need for labour, resources, trade etc). So, again, influences could be occurring in all sorts of different ways.

Evidence for a cynic Jesus May be far moreextensive than anyone thought. If Jesus's speeches are all polysemic , Jesus is always cynical in the modern/postmodern sense. Not being committed to any single truth.

In the absence of conviction, he might have embraced a nihilistic asceticism or hate for the world. Which would reflect the original cynics, turned by Socrates and Plato, to "hate" for conventional worldly values

...a weblog dedicated to historical Jesus research and New Testament studies

__

Search This Blog

_______

Le Donne, Keith, Pitre, Crossley, Jacobi, Rodríguez

James Crossley (PhD, Nottingham) is Professor of Bible, Society, and Politics at St. Mary's University, Twickenham, London. In addition to most things historical Jesus, his interests typically concern Jewish law and the Gospels, the social history of biblical scholarship, and the reception of the Bible in contemporary politics and culture. He is co-executive editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.

Christine Jacobi studied protestant theology and art history in Berlin and Heidelberg. She is research associate at the chair of exegesis and theology of the New Testament and apocryphal writings. She completed her dissertation at the Humboldt-University of Berlin in 2014. She is the author of Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus? Analogien zwischen den echten Paulusbriefen und den synoptischen Evangelien (BZNW 213), Berlin: de Gruyter 2015. Christine Jacobi is a member of the „August-Boeckh-Antikezentrum“ and the „Berliner Arbeitskreis für koptisch-gnostische Schriften“.

Chris Keith (PhD, Edinburgh) is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity and Director of the Centre for the Social-Scientific Study of the Bible at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham, London.

Anthony Le Donne (PhD, Durham) is Associate Professor of New Testament at United Theological Seminary. He is the author/editor of seven books. He is the co-founder of the Jewish-Christian Dialogue and Sacred Texts Consultation and the co-executive editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.

Brant Pitre (PhD, University of Notre Dame) is Professor of Sacred Scripture at Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans. Among other works, he is the author of Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile (Mohr-Siebeck/Baker Academic, 2005), and Jesus and the Last Supper (Eerdmans, 2015). He is particularly interested in the relationship between Jesus, Second Temple Judaism, and Christian origins.

Rafael Rodríguez (PhD, Sheffield) is Professor of New Testament at Johnson University. He has published a number of books and essays on social memory theory, oral tradition, the Jesus tradition, and the historical Jesus, as well as on Paul and Pauline tradition. He also serves as co-chair of the Bible in Ancient and Modern Media section of the Society of Biblical Literature.

Books by the Jesus Bloggers

To purchase, follow these links

___

Jesus and the Last Supper

_____

Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text